
Class ._ Ft9K 



Book ^11 



The Washington City Ring, 



1> 

SPEECH *fi 



OF 



HON. ROBERT B. ROOSEVELT, 

OF NEW YOUK, 

DBI.IVRRED 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

FEBRUARY 11, 1873; 

■ ' \ 

ON THE AFFAIRS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



WASHINGTON: 

P. & J. RIVES & GEO. A. BAILEY, 

REPORTERS AND PRINTERS OF TITE DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 

1878. 



Fl 



Co 



The Washington City Ring, 



The House being in Committee of the Whole on 
the state of the Union, and having under considera- 
tion the Army appropriation bill — 

Mr. ROOSEVELT said: 

Mr. Chairman': I thank my colleague [Mr. 
Wood] for his kindness in yielding me the 
floor. I also wish to express my obligations 
to the House for permitting me an opportunity 
to reply to aspersions and malignities the 
grossness of which has rarely and the untruth- 
fulness of which has never been exceeded. 
For weeks past the press of this city has been 
filled with all manner of abusive and scurril- 
ous attacks upon me for my course of action 
in reference to the Board of Public Works in 
this District ; for my efforts to expose the in- 
iquities and outrages which are being perpe- 
trated on the residents here, and the bold and 
reckless way in which the money of the people 
is being squandered by a ring of officials who 
are appointed as a species of commission to 
govern them, and whom they cannot remove. 

I was fully prepared, in undertaking the 
defense of the citizens of this District against 
the Board of Public Works, to meet with 
precisely the same treatment that I had en- 
countered when battling against the prototype 
of this board, the Tammany ring in the city 
of New York. I anticipated that I should be 
blackguarded and vilified. I anticipated that 
a servile press would be used against me in 
every possible way, and that all the influences 
which could be brought to bear by the board 
•would be exerted either to force me out of the 
contest, or to compel others from whom I had 
to receive information to cease furnishing me 



with it. But, sir, I have never yet been fright- 
ened off by any such means. 

We all know that a stream can never rise 
above its source, atid we may expect from foul 
iips foul words. The gentlemtn who took 
occasion — not the gentleman, I will not defile 
the word by such a use of it — the person who 
took occasion in one of the papers of the city a 
short time ago to make most blackguard and 
insulting allusions to me is the vice president 
of the board, and as such is fond of building 
sewers. I can only say that if he were to take 
himself as a model he would make a sewer 
that could carry more filth and dirt than the 
thirty-foot Tiber span. A dunghill will be a. 
dunghill though you gild it an inch thick 
with gold stolen from the public treasury. 
When ability seizes absolute power we admire, 
although we may suffer and fear, but when 
coarseness and vulgarity climb by devious 
mean3 and through roads leading directly 
under the frowning walls of a State prison, 
into prominence and influence, we expect them 
to carry with them the slime and filth of the 
gutter from which they sprang. I leave these 
men to the laws. I make no attempt to bandy 
words with them. I should not even have 
noticed their attacks but that these were cal- 
culated to affect legislation, and were care- 
fully brought to the notice of all the members 
of the House. By the connivance or neglect 
of the Doorkeeper, and entirely contrary to 
all propriety, the most contemptible of these 
articles were allowed to be placed upon the 
desk of every member, so that he could hardly 
help Bet ing thetn. Apart from this, such scur- 



rilities, for they are nothing else, would not 
be worthy of notice, for time will punish the 
authors and vindicate my course of action. 

Look at the Tammany ring in the city of 
New York today. One man gone no one 
knows whither ; lost to sight, but by no means 
dear to memory, though he has been very dear 
to the citizens of New York. Another one 
standing face to face with the gloomy portals 
of a prison. Others scattered, some here, some 
there, their power broken, their followers 
turning traitors and giving evidence against 
them; the whole fabric of their evil grandeur 
dissolved like a dream of the night, and pun- 
ishment coming resistlessly and relentlessly 
onward. I leave the board here to the same 
fate, and when I have closed these remarks I 
shall have nothing further to say to them. 
The laws will answer them much more effect- 
ually than I can, and will answer them as cer- 
tainly as retribution follows crime. It may 
be sooner or later, but the time will surely 
arrive. I may not be a partaker in the triumph 
of honesty. I may be even defeated, but 
where I leave the work, other hands will take 
it up and carry it forward. It will go on and 
on until right and justice win the day. 
"Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet 
they grind exceeding small." 

I shall now take up one or two of the 
charges made in the newspaper press, such 
only as I think worth answering, leaving the 
rest to the contempt of silence, and occupying 
the time of this House with personal matters 
as little as possible. These charges are con- 
tained in the publication of a pretended inter- 
view with the person to whom I have already 
referred. 

The first charge brought against me by this 
person was that I had applied for a position 
for an individual by the name of Charles Riley 
under the Board of Public Works. Is that a 
charge of any consequence ? Is not every 
member of the House guilty of the same act, 
if it be an act to be ashamed of? It is then 
alleged that I was offended because his salary 
was not sufficient, and a pretended conversa- 
tion is given between him and some employe 
of the board, in which he threatened them 
with my vengeance. I have here the affidavit 
of Mr. Riley utterly denying these charges of 
threatening that I would attack the board if 
he did not get an increase of salary, or assert- 



ing that he had any influence over myself. He 
denies the allegations made against him in 
their whole scope and meaning, and he further 
states what is the simple fact, and what I 
hereby fully confirm, that from the day on 
which he left the office to the time he made 
this affidavit he has never spoken to me about 
the Board of Public Works. I would not have 
gone through the labor of this investigation 
for ten times his salary, and the entire affair 
is so trivial and so ridiculous that I shall not 
even read his affidavit. 

It is further intimated that I voted for a bill 
to put the sum of $100,000 into the hands of 
the Board of Public Works. They do not say 
nor appear to know what that bill was, nor do 
I ; but I can say this without trenching upon 
the silence usually maintained regarding the 
action of committees, that I believe I never 
cast a vote for the Board of Public Works that 
was not unanimous. But I am confident that 
if I ever voted for such a bill, and it was so 
profitable to the board, Mr. Riley would not 
have been turned out of office by insufficiency 
of salary. 

It is further charged that I obtained by sur- 
reptitious or indirect means proof-sheet copies 
of the report of the board to the President, 
that I had been using those proof-sheets dis- 
honestly, deceiving this House, and doing in- 
justice to the board. I have here on my desk, 
and now hold up that members may see, 
the four copies of the report of that board. 
One of them, which was the first I obtained, 
and I hence conclude the original one that 
was issued and transmitted to the President, 
has on it the name of the Philadelphia Ledger. 
I do not know how it got to that office, and I 
do not care to tell how it came into my hands. 
Another has upon it the name of Hon. Luke 
P. Poland, of Vermont. How I got it from 
that gentleman is a matter between him and 
me. But i f either of these was stolen from the 
Board of Works or obtained by any improper 
or indirect method, .here is prima facie evi- 
dence that it was so obtained by that gen- 
tleman, or by some one in the Philadelphia 
Inquirer office. Of course the assertion, like 
many others from the same source, is utterly 
unfounded, and these reports were reguiarly 
printed and issued. 

AH these four volumes are apparently sim- 
ilar. They are bound in the same way, except 



the one bound in boards. They have the same 
indorsement. To the eye they seem one and 
the same thing, and yet they are all different. 
No two of them are alike. The title-page 
upon each copy is the same: " Report of the 
Board of Public Works of the District of 
Columbia, from its organization until Novem- 
ber 1. 1$72;" and yet on examination we find 
strange and curious dissimilarities. In plain 
words, these reports have been altered for a 
purpose. Changes have been made with the 
express intention of misleading this House 
and covering up errors and misstatements 
which had been exposed. In a previous 
speech, when I had only two of these reports 
in my possession, I alluded to the fact that in 
one copy a portion of the report, that contained 
on the last page and giving the cost of much 
of the work, had been suppressed because per- 
haps it was supposed that it contradicted the 
Board of Public Works, who were demanding 
far higher prices from the Government. To 
meet this that page is reproduced in the third 
report, if I may designate them by the order 
in which they were apparently printed, while 
other alterations are made to counterbalance 
it. I will call attention to the fact that I have 
made three addresses — they were so hastily 
delivered I cannot call them speeches — three 
desultory series of remarks, and that the board 
has made three corrected reports. 

After every one of my addresses they got 
out a different report, adding to or changing 
the figures, and then undertake to go before the 
people or come into this House and say I have 
falsified the record. Because the figures I give 
are not in their second report, they cast in- 
sinuations, with a truculence which accompa- 
nies successful guilt, upon my accuracy. But 
I shall leave this matter, reverting to it more 
in detail when I come to point out the precise 
alterations, in reply to the speech of the Del- 
egate from the District of Columbia, made in 
defense of the board and printed in the Globe 
of February 9. 

I shall now take up another scurrilous in- 
sinuation which was intended to reflect upon 
my election. I received the nomination of all 
the Democratic parties in my district except 
one faction of Tammany Hall which was in 
rebellion and was largely composed of the 
worst elements. My election took place after 
the United States election law was passed 



which provided for the selection of two super- 
visors and the appoinment of ten deputy 
marshals at each polling place. The statute 
provided that one of the supervisors should 
be taken from each party and that these two 
should count the votes, but when I applied 
for the appointment of those in my interest 
I was told that they had all been "given" 
to my adversary. This fact was stated by 
me at the time, in a letter to the public, and 
admitted to be true ; so that all the super- 
visors were wholly in the interest of my op- 
ponent, and were selected by him or his 
friends. There were over seventy polling places 
in my congressional district; so that there 
were appointed nearly one thousand men to 
work and vote against me, men who were paid 
by the United States and who had all the power 
and authority of the Government behind them. 
This advantage was used ruthlessly, my sup- 
porters being arrested on every species of pre- 
text, with or without foundation, and held in 
$10,000 bail each — a bail it was impossible 
for them to give. In one case the person 
who had charge of the tickets for an entire 
ward was seized at four o'clock of election 
morning simply because he had changed his 
place of residence, although it was as well 
known that he resided there as that Horace 
Greeley resided at Chappaqua. This was 
carried so far that I was compelled to resort 
to my rights under a State law which author- 
ized candidates to appoint a person at each 
poll to see the ballots counted. Under this 
provision, I selected friends to discharge the 
duty of seeing a fair count. They were refused 
admittance to a few polls, which in every case 
gave a heavy majority against me. In spite 
of these difficulties, however, I carried every 
ward included within my district and polled 
10,702 votes, while my opponent only received 
5,501, although he had the Republican nom- 
ination, which usually carries between four 
and five thousand. 

But as insinuations have been made against 
the integrity of my past public career, I will, 
if the House will excuse the egotism, go over 
a part of my personal history. I was always 
a Democrat as I understood the meaning of 
that term, a free-trade representative of the 
rights of the people. During the rebellion I 
was a war Democrat, being active in organ- 
izing the war Democracy and being treasurer 



6 



of the great meeting held in Cooper Institute. 
I never believed that the old-fashioned fighting 
Democracy should be led by or surrendered to 
traitors, and gave time and money to help re- 
cruit our armies. I helped organize the Loyal 
National League, being president of the ward 
association in my ward, and was one of the 
founders of the Union League Club, leaving it 
only when it became not a national but a parti- 
san body. In local politics I was a reformer, 
being one of the founders of the Citizens Asso- 
ciation and on its executive committee till I 
entered into more active political life. Then I 
took part in the opposition to Tammany su- 
premacy and became one of the leaders of the 
party which was striving to purify Democracy. 
When the grand uprising against the corrup- 
tions of the Tammany ring took place I was 
one of the two Democrats who spoke at the 
first meeting at Cooper Institute at a time 
when the enemy were still all powerful and 
when such a proceeding was a bold and dan- 
gerous step. I was selected one of the Com- 
mittee of Seventy, and was last fall intrusted 
by my associates with the sole charge of organ- 
izing the canvass for the reform candidate 
at the mayoralty election, which resulted in 
the crowning success of the work of reform. 
Under such circumstances, and with such a 
record, is it any wonder that I oppose the 
Board of Public Works in this District. I 
have grown into such a confirmed reformer 
that I have even tried to reform the rules of 
this House which make it so difficult for me 
ever to get the floor, and to save the time 
wasted in calling the yeas and nays, and to im- 
prove the ventillation of this Chamber where 
we are hourly being stifled by bad air. Such, 
if the House will excuse me lor referring to it, 
is a brief record of my public life. Can the 
gentleman who represents the District on this 
floor point to a better one? 1 will at least 
do him the justice to say that he also is cred- 
ited with having had something to do with 
recruiting. 

I have now done with the charges contained 
in the paper referred to, not answering the 
rest simply because they are unworthy of a 
reply. Lest the House should be misled, how- 
ever, by the unanimity of the press in this 
District in favor of the Board of Public 
Works, I will refer to a fact that was proved 
before the committee of investigation last 



year. An organized plan was made to subsi- 
dize the press, $143,635 62 being paid nom- 
inally in seven months, but really in about 
three months, for that purpose. This was 
mostly incurred when the board were try- 
ing to induce the people to vote for their 
$4,000,000 loan bill, and was spent in adver- 
tising that loan, although it was perfectly under- 
stood all the while that not a dollar of it would 
be negotiated in the District. 

While speaking of that loan I may as well 
explain why it was so generally approved — a 
point that has beeu made against me on several 
occasions. Tickets for and against the bill 
were printed by the government; those in favor 
of it were distributed, and those against it were 
suppressed. The scheme was simple but effect- 
ive, as every member of this House who has run 
in a city district well knows. It was in speak- 
ing of this attempt at purchasing the press 
that I incurred the displeasure of my friend 
Donn Piatt of the Capital, which had a hit at 
me the other day. I have always admired the 
brilliant editor of the Capital, and could for- 
give his injustice for his wit ; but last year, in 
a speech on District affairs, I mentioned the 
fact that his paper had received its share of 
the plunder. I said the Capital had received 
$2,144 64 — I had almost forgotten the cents — 
and that Donn Piatt seemed to have gone dog 
cheap, for I considered him worth twice the 
money. So I do ; but if he differs from me I 
will retract and apologize ; he ought certainly 
to know best. I owe an apology also to another 
gentleman, from whom I received the follow- 
ing note : 

No. 1209, Sixteenth street, Northwest, 
Washington, L>. C, June 8, 1S72. 

Dear Sir: I find in this morning's Patriot the 
concluding portion of your speech upon frauds in 
the District, delivered in the House of Representa- 
tives May 17, 1872, where the following inaccuracy 
occurs: "'Every paper, no matter how petty or 
worthless, had a share of the spoils;" also, of 
course, ihc following sweeping sentence: "The 
watch-dogs, great and small." ifcc, referring to the 
papers aforementioned. 

The truth in the case is that The Little Christian 
Magazine, now suspended, of which I was the pub- 
lisher, did not receive a single penny from these 
spoils; neither could the whole of it. to use your 
own expression, have bought it up. No, sir; it will 
dye first, lean most positively assure you. You have 
wronged me, sir. 

Yours, very truly, VICTOR HANNOT. 

Hon. It. B. Roosevelt. M. O. 

1 can only say that, to judge by the fact tha 
the editor of The Little Christain Magazine 
intended to "dye first," either he must have 
been a " little off color" before, or I had some 



color for my charges. Seriously, however, I 
do not mean to charge that respectable and 
honorable papers may not receive advertising 
from a person or a public body without sell- 
ing their independence. But I do say tbat 
$140,001) spent in this small city in a few 
months only needed the confirmation of sub- 
sequent acts of servility to be converted from a 
payment iuto a bribe. 

I will now leave these personal matters and 
proceed to answer the speech of the Delegate 
from the District of Columbia, which was in- 
tended as a reply to my first exposure of the 
misstatements contained in the report of the 
Board of Public Works. I shall confine my- 
self to argument, paying no more attention to 
his numerous unparliamentary insinuations 
than I would to the barking of a yellow dog 
running down Pennsylvania avenue. 

He first charges me with making a misrep- 
resentation, because I computed the hun- 
dred and fifteen miles of pavement at, thirty- 
two feet wide. There is no doubt about there 
being a misrepresentation, nor as to who made 
it. I simply took it from the report of the 
Board of Works, which contains these words : 

"One hundred and fifteen and thirty-sixth hun- 
dredths miles of improved carriage-way pavements, 

assumingthe same atthirty-two feet wide." 'Page 8.) 

If these figures are false, as I dare say they 
are, I did not make them. The fact-sure known 
only to the board, who put them in any way to 
suit themselves. 

He next denies my calculations of the 
cost of improvements, pretending with true 
Pecksniffian obliquity of mind to understand 
me as referring to the expense of pavements 
alone. I repeat that my calculations, which 
were mainly based on the figures in the report, 
were correct; but I will now confirm thein by 
others. I said the board must have spent 
from twelve to fourteen millions on streets 
alone, and gave several modes of estimating 
the amount. Without going over them again, 
which would confirm them, but take too long, 
I will add three other methods of computa- 
tion. The reports of the board — all of them, 
for a wonder — contain a table of the cost of 
improving twenty-nine streets and one alley, a 
length of 'Jl,G08 front feet — not linear feet, be 
it understood, a deception which the board 
will use unless I anticipate it. A comparison 
of the distances on the accompanying tables 
proves conclusively that a foal front is meant ; 



in other words, that both sides of the street 
are measured. Half of 91,008 feet is eight 
and a half miles, to which should be added by 
the board's own estimate twenty per cent, for 
intersections, giviug about, ten miles. At that 
rate fifty-six miles would cost $13,337,095. 

Again, I have received the assessments for 
improvements on eight streets and two avenues 
in additiou to the four streets and one avenue 
1 gave before. These average $-46' 39, making 
a total of $13,708,073. The gentleman who 
gave me these tells me he asked for a copy 
of all the assessments at the office of the 
board, but was refused. This morning I was 
handed three more assessments, the average 
of which is still higher. 

Mr. CHIPMAN. Will the gentleman state 
from whom he received those assessments? 

Mr. ROOSEVELT. No, I will not ; for I 
understand that the Board of Public Works 
would persecute the man. Men have come to 
me with fear and trembling and asked me to 
continue my efforts in this matter, but not to 
disclose their instrumentality, because they do 
not know what might happen to them. They 
feel assured they would be punished whenever 
it might be within the power of the Board of 
Public Works. 

Now, gentlemen, these are not my figures ; 
I have not made them up. I have taken them 
from the board, either in the report or such 
assessments as I have been able to get, or 
which have been brought to me voluntarily by 
gentlemen interested in this matter. 

It is impossible to bring out any less result, 
and the attempts of the gentleman only prove 
this, for he has selected the two cheapest 
streets iu the city — Fourth and Twelfth — to 
be used to refute my calculations. On Fourth 
street there was no grading and no sewering 
to be done, and on Twelfth street only $300 
for sewering, and very little grading. This 
evasion on his part is practically a confession 
of the truth of my assertions. I have taken 
the assessment on every street I could get 
hold of, omitting none and only asking for 
more. He would select the two cheapest ia 
the city. In confirmation, I have been told 
of an assessment on one house of twenty-five 
feet wido of $1,000, and on a lot which cost 
$860 of $850. This beats the finest efforts 
of New York fleecers in their palmiest days. 
There, where two thirds and not one third ia 



8 



charged to the property, a thousand-dollar 
assessment on a hundred-foot corner lot was 
regarded as excessive and was the highest I 
ever heard of. 

Having pretty effectually disposed of that, 
I will now take up the next point. I stated in 
my last speech that there were sixteen con- 
tracts extended, but for which no additional 
charge was carried out, and on these there was 
a difference of $530,905 72 of excess of liabil- 
ities not accounted for. These have been criti- 
cised in a statement of the Delegate from the 
District, and the amount put, not at $530,000, 
but only at $243,414 50. Now, that is a mod- 
erate mistake in sixteen contracts, is it not? 
But it is not the mistake they really make, 
because they doctored those contracts. My 
statement was strictly correct except one error 
made by the Globe proof-reader, and a mistake 
of eighty-one dollars made in running a line 
across. But after my speech was delivered a 
new report was issued and additional amounts 
inserted. Then they had the impudence delib- 
erately to compare those with my statements 
and pretend I had blundered. But there was 
a difficulty in their way they had not consid- 
ered, for after all there is some virtue in fig- 
ures. They had previously inserted the sum 
total of their statement at $6,387,033 15, 
which is substantially correct, for it has been 
gone over by my associate on the committee, 
the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Crebs,] and 
found as near right as the board can make any- 
thing; that is, only a couple of hundred dollars 
out of the way. They add $170,000 to that 
amount ; but the trouble is that then their 
figures will not add up right. They carry out 
the total the same, no changes being made in 
that; but they put in $170,000 that they have 
not accounted for. I suppose they thought I 
was not good at addition, and in that they were 
pretty near the truth. The way these alterations 
were made is this, and the changes probably 
involved the stereotyping of an entirely new 
report : beneath the figures which I gave they 
interlined others and connected the two with a 
bracket. On page 2, beneath D. Hudnell's con- 
tract of $753 G8, they interlined $11,294 10; 
beneath Patrick Cullinane's contract of 
$19,969 40 and$8,499 they interlined $70,500 ; 
beneath Crowley's contract for $2,331 88 they 
interlined $10,868 50; beneath Neitzey's con- 
tract for $7,917 25 they interlined $51,465 30; 



beneath Campbell's $2,757 24 they interlined 
$21,964 56, and beneath Stafford's contract 
of $592 they interlined $8,246 30. None of 
these amounts were in the original report, and 
my statements were positively accurate. Any 
gentleman can see this by referring to this 
report, which I have gone over again care- 
fully, the only two mistakes being one of eight 
cents, made probably in copying, and the sec- 
ond being an error of $81 69. 

In connection with one contract, however, 
that of George W. Linville, I want to point 
out another performance of this most respect- 
able and ingenuous board ; for I take it that 
the board is responsible for these figures, not 
the Delegate from the District. I referred to 
the contracts made with Faetz and Murphy, 
and assigned by them to George W. Linville, 
and expressly so stated, referring to the two 
contracts that had been assigned by the pages 
of the original report, as there were no num- 
bers to these contracts in that report, and I 
could designate them in no more accurate 
way. In his reply it was said the amount 
was $101,076 70, and he referred to the con- 
tract of George W. Linville of that amount. 
But, sir, this is a different contract, and it is 
hardly possible to suppose the person who got 
up the reply did not know it. I had given the 
pages at 4 and 11, and they give the page at 
15, one being a direct contract to Mr. Linville, 
and the other two contracts assigned to him 
and described as such. So gentlemen will 
see this is another and most grossly palpable 
evasion. 

They have admitted errors even under this 
new statement of $243,414 56; but, as they 
contend, there is omitted on the other side of 
canceled contracts, which you will recollect I 
referred to, but the amount I could not give 
because it is nowhere stated, an equal amount 
there is no error at all. They argue that as 
they made an error of $243,000 on the one side 
and $267,000 on the other side, I am guilty 
of a blunder of $540,000 in accusing them of 
making any mistake at all ; which conclusion 
is barefaced and impudent enough to be r unny. 
I do think the gentleman who prints such 
things or who utters such statements on the 
floor of this House should be held to respons- 
ibility for them. It seems almost incredible 
that any one should be bold enough to take 
such a stand, and only shows the calm confi- 



9 



dence of the Board of Works that they are not 

only above reach, but above criticism. The 

gentleman sums up the result in these words: 

" This, bear in mind. Mr. Speaker, where the 
member from New York claims a discrepancy 
against the board of §530,1187 33 in sixteen contracts ; 
a trifling misrepresentation on his partof $554,648 20." 

In other words, because they admit they 
have blundered on the both sides, those two 
blunders balance one another, and my state- 
ment of their blunders is not only incorrect, 
but a misrepresentation. 

But they have not explained all of these 
omissions even now ; they have only picked 
out a few, about fifteen, and undertaken to 
give us here and there what you may call 
their rerevised report as to these. There are 
about seventy contracts which were extended, 
and about seventy canceled, and they have 
pretended to correct sixteen. Perhaps the 
rest bear the same average, perhaps not. 
Who knots'? Certainly neither this House 
nor myself. They claim they have omitted 
on sixteen so much money on the debit side, 
and on about twenty- five so much money on 
the credit side ; but they say nothing of the 
additional forty on one side and fifty on the 
other, which are not carried out either as to 
their extension or cancellation. 

The following is a list of extensions of con- 
tracts against which no sum is set down in 
the column of liabilities: 

Six extensions on pace 2, elovon extensions on 
nage 3, eleven extensions on page 4, nine extensions 
on page 5, five extensions on page 6, eight exten- 
sions on page 7, four extensions on pago 8, seven 
extensions on page 9, two extensions on page 10, 
four extensions on page 11, five extensions on page 
12, (bur extensions on page 13, seven extensions on 
page 14, six extensions on page 15, four extensions on 
page 16, eight extensions on pago 17, three exten- 
sions on page 18, two extensions on page 19, eight 
extensions on page 20, eight extensions on pago 21, 
six extensions on page 22, six extensions on pago 23, 
eleven extensions on page 24, six extensions on page 
24, four extensions on page 25, three extensions on 
page 27, two extensions on page 2S,one extension on 
pago 29, one extension on page 30, one extension on 
page 31, one extension on page 32, four extensions 
on page 33, two extensions on page34, two extensions 
on page 35, two extensions on page 36, three exten- 
sions on page 37 — seventy-seven contracts extended. 

Even in this amended statement they have 
made no effort to explain a vast number of 
other omissions. There are numerous ori- 
giual contracts against which no sum was car- 
ried out in their first or last statements, three 
being on page 15 alone. I point out No. 271, 
page 17, six feet six inch brick barrel sewer, 
itc. , to Samuel Strong, no amount carried out, 
although the expense must have been very 
large. I will not attempt to particularize, how- 



ever, and will merely say there are dozens of 
contracts in the same condition. 

I will now examine the voucher on which 
the $1,240,000 appropriation of the United 
States was paid. Gentlemen will remember 
that a demand was made against the Govern- 
ment on the ground that a large amount of 
work had been done by the Board of Works in 
front of United States property. The items 
of this work were given in detail in the report 
to the President, even to feet and half feet of 
extent, but in the act appropriating the money 
a remeasurement was ordered to be made 
under the supervision of General Babcock. I 
expressly declared in the course of my previous 
remarks, and I renew the declaration now, 
that I cast no reflection on General Babcock. 
There may be differences of opinion between 
us, in which I am as likely to be wrong as him- 
self; and I recognize the extreme difficulty 
under which he labored to get at accurate in- 
formation, it being almost impossible to meas- 
ure grading after the work has been done and 
the surface lines obliterated. It was not pos- 
sible for him to dig up a sewer to ascertain the 
size of the pipe or the depth at which it had 
been laid, and in such matters he had mainly 
to rely on the assertions of the board. If they 
told him a sewer was an eighteen-iuch tile pipe 
when it was only twelve, or that it was laid ten 
feet deep when it was only five, he had no 
means of detecting the imposition. 

I think I can clearly show that he was mis- 
led or mistaken in certain matters, but by 
doing so I by no means intend charging him 
with complicity. Take, for instance, the sewer 
on G street along the City Hall reservation, for 
which he has allowed $3,290, whereas the 
contract (p. 13) is only for $1,571. So with 
the rate allowed for sewering, which he has 
put at $4 70 a lineal foot, whereas by looking 
over the tables of expenditures for sewers, 
including laying manholes, traps, and all com- 
plete, it never exceeds $3 50, and averages 
only about $2 50. These, however, are minor 
matters. I accept his measurement as sub- 
stantially correct. 

You will bear in mind that when I referred 
to General Babcock's voucher I explicitly 
said I had seen it in the Treasury Department, 
but that I had not examined it critically. I 
had merely glanced it, and had not gone over 
its details, but had been told by the clerk who 



10 



showed it to me that it proved the board' a report 
to be correct to a dollar and a foot. Since then I 
have obtained a copy in full, which I hold here in 
my hand, and asyou will see, itconsists of sixty- 
six quarto pages, almost entirely composed of fig- 
ures, so that it was utterly impossible for me in a 
momentary glance to make out what was in it. 
But I do not want any better evidence than 
that very voucher for what I have stated about 
the utter worthlessness of the report of the 
Board of Works, and perhaps all but the blind 
adherents of the board will be surprised when I 
announce the fact that there is but a single 
item in the voucher of General Babcock, 
that I have been able to find, which accords with 
any item in their report. To give you a speci- 
men of this, and to prove that 1 am correct, I 
will take up the matter of grading, not going 
into that of sewerage, or curbing, or anything 
else, as one class of work will answer for all. 
I have here a list of the items for grading, as 
charged by the Board of Public Works against 
the United States, contrasted with the amounts 
allowed by General Babcock, and I repeatthat 
in only one instance is there any similarity: 

Comparative -statement, of grading, as measured by the 

Board of Public Work* and by General Babcock; 

Gen. B. B. of W. 

Cubic Locality. Cubic 

yards. yards. 

2 505 /Pennsylvania av., 21st st. to Rock) iq qqq j 

12,970 Pennsylvania av.. 1st. 2d, and 3d sts. None.' 
34,491 Pennsylvania av., 4th to 6(h sts. 11,206! 
6,631 Penns.vlva.nia av., 7th to 9ih sts. 11.206 I 
41,025 Fifteenth st. n. w.. N. Y. av., &c. 33,000 i 
11,480 Columbia Hospital. None, j 

2,lb'S Pennsylvania av. and K st. None. 

4,5 S P street circle. None. 

31,908 Scott square. 31,000 j 

4,280 Rawlins square. None. ; 

18,030 Sixth st. s. w„ B to B sts. 38,000 ! 

Not down. Mississippi av., 6th to 3d st. 9,932 

Not down. Maine av., 6th to 3d st. 9,932 

8 444 /New York and New Jersey 1 Not dis- 
' 1 avenues. J tinguished. 

Cost lumped by board $7,510 

Cost Lumped by Uen. Babcock... 12,019 
o a-a f N. Y. av., 1st, and M sts. comes in 

' 1 at same place as last item. 

7,170 Post Office. 

No' e. Stanton place. 

None. Marine barracks. 

23,000 Providence Hospital. 

21,905 Winder's building. 

1,508 National Home. 

7,370 Massachusetts av., 11th and 12th sts. 

7,370 Massachusetts av., 10th and 11th sts. 

4,009 Massachusetts av., 3d and 4th sts. 

5,860 Four-and-a-half street. 

11,777 Third street. 

3,345 Connecticut avenue. Not down. 

11,688 Connecticut av., 2d St. to R st. Not down. 

418 Massachusetts av. to M st. east. Not down. 

1,837 Massachusettsnv. to M.st. west. Not down. 

430 Reservation No. 7. Not down. 

295,227 Totals 



11,200 
27,780 

4,270 
23.000 
12,000 

3,000 
None. 
None. 
None. 
Nuno. 
None. 



235,526 



Difference. 59.701 at forty cents, $25,880 40. 



The item in relation to Providence park in 
both'reports is $23,000, a round set of figures 
which look suspiciously as if arranged so as to 
mislead General Babcock. Now, gentlemen 
may say how did General Babcock make the 
amout.o larger than the Board of Public Works 
claim it to be? Because he allowed them for 
additional charges that they did not make in 
their report, and which they seem to have for- 
gotten all about. This raises the very grave 
question whether he had any authority to do 
so ; whether in his measurement of the work 
submitted to Congress, and for which Congress 
agreed to pay, he was not confined to those 
precise matters. But it is far more strange 
that the board should have omitted claims 
against the Government of hundreds of thou- 
sands of dollars at a time when they were 
stretching every point to get as much money 
as possible. 

The position I take, however, and which 
this voucher entirely confirms, is that the re- 
port of the board is utterly unreliable, and 
that the figures it contains might as well have 
been drawn from a hat, so far as accuracy is 
concerned. A favorite performance of the 
defunct New York ring was to meet all investi- 
gations by a mass of incomprehensible and 
contradictory figures. When anybody " wanted 
to know, you know," they overwhelmed him 
with a mass of tables, accounts, and statements, 
dumped out anyhow and everyhow, and if he 
waded through them they gave him as many 
more, ever ready with a new batch, and 
explanations, and corrections, and continua- 
tions as extensive as the original supply, till 
the investigator was crushed into silence and 
submission. 

The Washington ring seems to be pursuing 
the same tactics, and when you observe that 
in five pages of closely segregated figures there 
is hardly one true one you can judge of the 
difficulty of exposing all their misstatements. 
General Babcock convicts or condemns the 
board and their report more fully and com- 
pletely than I have done, and nothing more 
is needed than his statement to show that all 
their accounts ought to be overhauled. 

I have heard of monstrous overcharges out- 
side of those made against the Government, 
but of these I can offer no positive proof; they 
are assertions, not official evidence. In one 
instance it was alleged that nine thousand feet 



11 



of curbing was charged for while only three 
thousand was laid ; in another, that incredible 
amouuts of grading were paid for while but little 
was done, and that there are enormous over- 
measurements of street pavements. Property- 
holders openly allege that they have had the 
work estimated for which they are charged in 
their assessments for improvements, and that 
the one third they are required to pay amounts 
to more than the total cost* should have been. 
These facts I cannot prove, but Geueral Bab- 
cock proves all 1 want. 

In old days when it was asserted that one 
half the money paid by the tax-payers of New 
York was squandered the charge was pooh- 
poohed as impossible ; it was said such asser- 
tions were preposterous ; but when the matter 
came before the judicial tribunals it was con- 
clusively proved that all but fifteen per cent, 
was misappropriated. I can only say I doubt 
if this city even gets fifteen per cent, in value 
for the money expended. Congress has now 
been investigating this board since January 
last, and yet can any one say that anything is 
known of their operations? We see streets 
dug down everywhere, shade-trees ruthlessly 
destroyed, sidewalks torn up and worthless 
pavements laid, but have we any idea of the 
cost or extent of these performances or of the 
financial condition of the board? After all 
these reports are we any wiser than when we 
began ? 

The board's undertakings are on the most 
magnificent scale. After expending their van- 
dalism ou the streets they attacked the harbor 
and proposed a so-called improvement which 
would have given a profit to the lucky specu- 
lators of $30,000,000. 

Tiny have before us — not before us, but 
they have talked of — a scheme to move the 
President's Mansion from where it is up to 
what is called the Little farm, involving per- 
haps $20,000,000 more of profit. They have 
grasped at the railroads of this city, and got 
possession of them all but the Pennsylvania 
line, I believe. And they have attempted to 
take the Globe printing. They are grabbing 
for everything, and they intend when they 
have got through to be the sole owners of 
property in the District of Columbia, and 
that no poor men shall reside in the capital 
of this great nation which has heretofore been 



regarded as the asylum for the poor of the 
world. 

I am not opposed to improving and beauti- 
fying this city. I am desirous even that the 
debts contracted by this board should be paid, 
especially to the laboring men who are not 
expected to discriminate in matters of author- 
ity when employed to do work ; but I insist 
that such operations shall be carried ou care- 
fully, honestly, economically, and according 
to law. I insist that Congress shall not be 
insulted and the President misled by such 
fabricated reports, such manuals of spoliation 
as they should more properly be called ; 
that there shall be no concealments, but that 
what is done shall be known to the people to 
be judged by them. 

The law is originally passed by Congress 
provided that no improvements should be 
made except in pursuance of specific ap- 
propriations by the District Legislature, but 
this requirement has been utterly set at 
naught. The comprehensive plan as sub- 
mitted to the Legislature and there ap- 
proved was not a bad one. and had it been 
carried out gradually it would have met general 
approval ; but it has been utterly disregarded. 

The prices of all the work were first raised 
to suit a system by which contracts were given 
out to favorites and not let to the lowest bid- 
der. By the original plan grading was to be 
twenty-five cents a cubic yard;that was increased 
to forty cents ; curbing was raised from a dollar 
to a dollar and a half; macadamizing from a 
dollar to a dollar and a half; the Tiber sew- 
ering from sixty dollars a foot to $102 50, and ' 
so on. Moreover it was expressly stipulated 
and provided that no work should be done 
unless at a rate twenty per cent, less than 
even these prices as first adopted. - In practice, 
hardly any work has been done as provided by 
the "comprehensive plan" approved by the 
Legislature, and noue at the prices therein 
established and for which appropriations were 
made. The total of all improvements author- 
ized was $8,222,900, from which twenty per 
cent., $1,044,55'.), was to be deducted, leaving 
(6,678,897 to pay for certain results and 
not to be expended unless it would produce 
those results. Instead of that, totally differ- 
ent works have been done at greatly iucreased 
prices. 



12 



Congress has just authorized the Secretary 
of the Navy to build six vessels of war, and 
appropriated so much money for the purpose. 
Suppose he were to build a fort instead, what 
would Congress say? But, again, suppose he 
spent it in beautifying public grounds near his 
own property and to its benefit, would not 
Congress at once demand his removal ? This 
is precisely what the Board of Works has 
done. Take the matter of wooden pavement. 
All they were authorized to lay was as fol- 
lows, there being no discretion left them to 
vary the kind of work or substitute different 
pavements: 

Wooden pavements by comprehensive plan. 

G street, 30,000 yards, at $2 per yard $60,000 

Fourteenth street, 55,000 yards, at$4 per yard, 220,000 

K street, 8,000 yards, at $2 per yard 16,000 

Four-and-a-half street, 50,000 yards, at$2 per 

yard 101,200 

Seventh street, 23,194 yards, at $4 per yard... 92,776 
Pennsylvania avenue, 63,530 yards, at $4 per 

yard 264,120 

Pennsylvania avenue, 50,000 yards, at $2 per 

yard 100,000 

Total $854,096 

In the report to the President they state they 
have laid 762,903 yards at $3 50, equal to 
$2,070,160, an excess of almost $2,000,000 
over the appropriation. The species of work 
was in all cases set out in the plan, which con- 
tained separate columns for that purpose, and 
where there was a pavement to be laid its kind 
was specified. In the matter of concrete pave- 
ments the disregard of law is still more flagrant, 
for there is no concrete whatever provided for 
under the act of the Legislature, actually no 
column for it in the "comprehensive plan," 
•and yet they have laid sixteen miles of it 
according to their own report. This is a 
monstrous assumption of power and abuse of 
trust. An attempt is made to justify it under 
the report of a board of engineers which in a 
qualified way indorses concrete against the ex- 
perience of every city in the United States. 
But who gave any body of such experts author- 
ity to change an act of the Assembly, or make 
legal what was otherwise prohibited ? That 
report, however, will do them little good ; it 
comes at once too soon and too late. It is 
dated May 15, 1872, before which time they 
had been laying concrete extensively, and 
since which time they have laid wooden pave- 
ments. That report condemns wooden pave- 
ments ; and if it is to be authority, no more 



wooden ones should be used, and yet two con- 
tracts for them have been entered into since 
November 1, 1872, as appears by the sup- 
plementary statement made to the Committee 
for the District of Columbia by the Board of 
Works, that for Second and Third streets east, 
November 15, Phillip's wooden pavement, 
$10,310, and November 18, De Golyer wooden 
pavement, $33,250. 

The fact is, as was proved in the investiga- 
tion last year, that concrete pavement laid as 
it is here only costs about seventy cents a yard, 
leaving a clear profit for somebody of $2 50. 
That it is utterly worthless needs no board of 
experts to prove. A man with a stout pair of 
boots could with them alone dig up half the 
concrete pavement in Washington before he 
wore the heels off. The model piece in front 
of the Arlington Hotel, which was laid at 
great expense, and by its endurance brought 
so much evil on the city, has been extended 
by the same parties through Scott square under 
the authority of the Board of Works, but so 
badly that on a dry day it is like a country 
road, and the foul and injurious dust is what, 
would be popularly called aukle deep. In 
windy weather this dust, driven into the houses, 
will ruitf^verything it touches; it will fill cur- 
tains, carpets, and furniture ; and then melting 
under the heat of fires, will run like tar, and 
defile whatever may come in contact with it. 
As for wooden pavements, the Board of Works 
have themselves given their opinion about 
them in their notes to their original compre- 
hensive plan, as follows: 

"The board is satisfied, upon careful consideration, 
that as a rule the value of property in the District 
will not warrant the general introduction of wood 
or other expensive pavements, and that, if at all 
used, they should be confined to a few of the princi- 
pal avenues of communication. It is believed thai 
road-beds of stone, more durable and equally free 
from dust and mud, can be constructed at less cost 
than has usually been paid for the most ordinary 
kind of stone pavements." 

In disposing of this subject I warn residents 
in this District not to be deceived by appear- 
ances; nothing is more beautiful than a con- 
crete plaster when first put down. It is as 
handsome as a mustard-plaster, and both are 
about equally nasty when they have been 
applied for a short time. The improvements 
made by the board are like life : " life is all a 
fleeting show," and so are they. In two years 
every concrete abomination will have returned 



13 



to dust, aud in two more the wooden affairs 
will have resolved themselves into typhoid 
fever. 

The Delegate from the District has stated 
in his speech that the certificates of assess- 
ment have been tested before the supreme 
court of this District and pronounced valid. 
In this he is mistaken. Actions were com- 
menced by property-holders for injunctions, 
and the court merely decided that these suits 
were premature and unnecessary, on the ground 
that there was a good defense at law if an 
attempt should be made to enforce them. 
Had the gentleman been a lawyer he would 
have been acquainted with the familiar rule of 
practice, that no application can be made to 
the equity side of a court where there is a legal 
defense which is broad enough to cover the 
requirements of the case. Otherwise a person, 
instead of defending a suit on a note, might 
ask the court to enjoin the holder from suing 



it, and thus practically do away with legal 
jurisdiction. So far from these certificates 
being held valid, it was strongly intimated in 
the opinion of the court, if I am not mistaken, 
that they were void; and such would certainly 
be the opinion of lawyers generally. 

I cannot follow the gentleman through all 
his other vagaries of assertion, and point out 
his omissions or mistakes ; as where he quotes 
the opinion of Mr. Blair in favor of improve- 
ments, but does not add that Mr. Blair stated 
he expected the improvements to cost $30,- 
000,000; or where he says that the taxes have 
not been increased, but does not add that they 
never are, so long as a city is borrowing money 
aud can pay its interest from its principal. As 
an evidence of the expenses of the District 

[ government, I will, however, quote a table 
from a speech made by me last year which 
settles the matter of economical administra- 

i tion : 



Statement showing the amount appropriated for executive officers, printing, advertising, and 
contingencies by the following States during the year 1871, and by the District of Columbia 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872 ; also, showing the population and number of square 
miles in each. 



States. 


Popula- 
tion of 
the last, 
census. 


Square 
miles. 


Salaries 
of ex- 
ecutive 
officers. 


Printing 
and ad- 
vertis- 
ing. 


Contin- 
gencies. 


Total 
amount. 




4,387,464 

626,915 

318,300 

1.4S7.351 

217,353 

537,454 

906.096 

2,665.260 

[,064,985 

Lil92,092 

2,539.89] 

131.700 


47,000 

31.760 

9,280 

7,800 

1,300 

4,670 

8,320 

89.969 

53.92Q 

5.->.0i0 

55.410 

6) 


8139.550 

65,133 

12.341 

234.205 

16.908 

5'. i. Si id 
46,187 
7: '..27.') 
65.963 
41.205 
26.753 
449,220 


S175.O0O 
35,000 

9.830 
98.531 

3,500 
98,875 
82.625 
75,300 
54.569 
40,495 
50,000 
143,635 


819.200 

17,400 

2.099 

30.300 

Included. 

Included. 

7.656 

13.25') 

17.008 

22.4:;:! 

39.108 

200.000 


$323,750 
117,533 

21.27H 
363,036. 

20,403 
158.675 
136.468 
1S3.925 
1372540 
113.133 
115.861 
792,855 








New Jersey 

Ohio 









He has introduced into his speech a most 
outrageous and uncalled for attack on a gen- 
tleman in this city who has giveu me some 
assistance, and to whom lam and the District 
ought to be obliged for it, and I now speak in 
order to defend him as a matter of justice. 
He has stated that Mr. Crane was accused iu 
a criminal trial in court of being unworthy of 
belief, and that a number of witnesses were 
called to testify to this fact. That is true, but 
is it the whole truth? Oo the contrary, is 



it not a clear case of what lawyers call sup- 
pressio veri? It is true, some dozen of wit- 
nesses were called from among the followers 
of the Board of Public Works or contractors, 
who had been denounced by him for fraudu- 
lent practices when he was in official position, 
who said they would not believe him under 
oath. He did not add, however, that this so- 
called criminal trial was a prosecution insti- 
tuted by Mr. Crane for libel, and that when his 
character was attacked he summoned eighty- 



14 



five of the leading gentlemen of this city, 
every one of whom testified to his character 
as being above reproach. Among these were 
Mayor Wallach, Mayor Emery, George W. 
Riggs, John D. Blake, and other gentlemen 
of the highest standing, who sustained him 
so strongly, that before he got through with 
calling them as witnesses the judge stopped 
him, and told him it was no longer necessary. 
Bear in mind that this reflection is made on 
an honest man by the Board of Works. See 
how they strike at him because he opposed their 
operations. Judge, then, why I do not receive 
more public assistance from residents in this 
District. Yet I assure you residents came to 
meprivately, enough of them ; not Democrats, 
but Republicans, nine out of ten of them, for 
I have always said fraud was no question of 
party ; not whites alone, but very often negroes : 
especially men of no great wealth, who seethe 
certainty of the property they have accumu- 
lated passing out of their hands into the hands 
of this grasping Board of Public Works. 

Shall I desert these men? Shall I sit silent 
as a member of a committee before which such 
things come and allow them to go on without 
my protest? It is true my constituents are 
not robbed, but they are largely of Irish and 
German birth or descent, and I can answer for 
the generous sympathy of the Irish heart and 
the strong Teutonic hatred of dishonesty, that 
they will thank me for my efforts almost as 
much as though they had been made iu their 
behalf. To show how downtrodden and intim- 
idated the citizens of Washington are, I will 
read a letter I have just received: 

Washington, February 10, 1873. 
Dear Sir: As a taxpayer of this District I have 
been much interested in the discussions in the House 
of Representatives in regard to the expenditures of 
the Board of Public Works of this District, and hav- 
ing accidentally got hold of a leaf of a pamphlet 
which I suppose to be part of the report of the Board 
of Public Works to Congress at the first of the pres- 
ent session. I thought I would call your attention 
to what seems to me very strange items in the " ex- 
penditures of James A. Magruder." This leaf being 
pages 63 and 64. On page 63, dated, I believe, Octo- 
Der 15, 1872. (this is page 159 of the report of the Board 

of Public Works.) was the following if om : " To 

Buckley. S street south, from First to Seventh streets 
west, $1,300." Now, a glance f>t any map of the city 
will show you that S street south does not exist be- 
yond Four-and-a-half street on the west, and as the 
arsenal wall comes up to Pstreet, all of Sstreet west 
of the James Creek canal is three squares within the 
arsenal grounds; and as for reaching Seventh street 
west by way of Sstreet south, you would have to pave 
and grade across the channel of the river, as Seventh 
street strikes the river bank about L street. There 
is also another item, though small, on tho same page, 
thus: "October 17. 1872, to B. Smith & Co., brick for 



S street south, from Third to Four-and-a-half 
street." This you will observe is within the arsenal 
grounds entirely. 

If they claim that the printer made a mistake and 
put south for north, it is just as bad, for although S 
street north does reach Seventh street west, a glance 
at the map will show you thatitdoes not reach First 
street by two or three squares, itstriking the bound- 
ary about Third or Fourth. 

This report, I believe, was reprinted at the Gov- 
ernment Printing Office, and though the page num- 
ber may be different, you can find these items by the 
dates. If such a number of evidences of truud can 
be found on a single page casually picked up, what 
a vast number there must be in the whole docu- 
ment ? 

As I am in a situation to be materially injured 
by "Boss " Aleck, I feel constrained to make this an 
anonymous communication. 

Yours, &c. A TAXPAYER. 

Hon. R. B. Roosevelt. 

It may be asked why do these men come to 
me. I shall not assume to say. Perhaps 
they think their own Representative neglectful 
of them ; perhaps they thought he was against 
them when they came before the committee 
of investigation, or perhaps they think he is 
too firm a believer in the immaculate purity 
of the Board of Works. Certain it is, that so 
long as the board remain in power he will be 
the Delegate from the District. That gentle- 
man has in his speech indulged in sundry 
hackneyed quotations. I would advise him 
to buy a dictionary of quotations before he 
tries again, that he may get them nearer right. 
In one of these he couples me in the future 
state of existence with Mr. Crane. When that 
time comes the company of an honest, though 
a poor man, will not be despised. But I am 
afraid if the gentlemnn selects his companions 
there as he has here he will find his quarters 
uncomfortably warm, even in days as cold as 
those of the past severe winter. 

It has been charged that I have animosity 
against the members of the Board of Public 
Works. I have none. Thfir acts alone are 
what I condemn. Last Thursday week the 
Committee for the District of Columbia ad- 
dressed them certain questions. Receiving no 
answer last Thursday, they were requested to 
answer forthwith snch of them as they could 
answer at once. Four days have expired since 
then, and yet no reply has been received to a 
single interrogatory. Among these were, in 
substance, whether they had used up the fund 
of the District appropriated for police, fire, 
and school purposes ; whether they had bor- 
rowed money, how much they owed their 
laborers, and how much of the appropriation 
of Congress was still unexpended. 



15 



: 



It is clear these could be answered at once, 
and among all there were at most two that 
could by any construction involve a delay of 
twenty four hours. So Congress is still kept 
in the dark, while day after day come up 
schemes for giving the board more money. 
They have stated in their accounts there was 
abalance to their credit. We have given them 
$1,240,000 more, and yet they are clamoring 
for an additional $2,000,000. On their state- 
ment the following report was made, under 
my motion to inquire into the debt of the 
District: 

"3d. As to tho third inquiry involved in the reso- 
lution, to wit, "what sum will be required to finish 
the work undertaken by the board?' tho committee 
report that from tho communications herewith sub- 
mitted, and tho printed report of the board, no 
further sums will be required to complete the work 
undertaken, and for ichich l!<tl>iliticn have been in- 
curred, than those included in the foregoing esti- 
mates." 

Let gentlemen bear this in mind when the 

ver recurring cry of " Give, give 1" is raised 

again. Let us believe that the board occa- 



sionally tells the truth. Tammany Hall was 
twelve years in reaching its worst state of 
corruption, but the Bourd of Public Works iu 
the District of Columbia seems to have been 
born rotten. 

I have done, and hope never again to be called 
upon to say a word more on this subject. The 
responsibility is now with the House, and 
my duty is finished. These facts have come 
before me from my official position. Congress 
is in possession of them. In making them 
public I have earned the hate of vulgar power. 
But there is justice in the skies, and when it 
falls dishonesty will slink away into its nat- 
ural obscurity. Amid this wilderness of fig- 
ures I should expect to have blundered. In 
picking out these numerous contradictions I 
might readily have gone wrong; but so far not 
one mistake has been brought home to me. 
The labor involved has been great, and it is 
with sincere sense of relief that I find myself 
discharged from further responsibility. 



S '12 



